Whilst I hate having to criticise the efforts of others to end injustices - and there are few greater injustices than vivisection - I suggest all those involved with this ask themselves just what they hope to gain from this enormous expenditure in time, effort and money. Consider:

1. These sort of protests have been going on for many decades, and yet vivisection continues to thrive.

2. Few people will ever consider campaigning to end vivisection so long as they believe it helps save human lives.

3. Thanks to systematic brainwashing on the part of the media most people believe that vivisection does save human lives.

4. The 'animal rights' argument has, by its use over several decades, proven to be worse than useless in bringing about abolition. Indeed, due to the often ludicrous antics of some AR people they have ended up alienating many people from the anti-vivisection movement on account of the fact that AR people are often perceived as a very real threat to 'life-saving medical research'.

These sort of protests will continue indefinitely, and lab animals will continue to suffer indefinitely, until those in the 'movement' wake up and utilise the vast arsenal of indisputible scientiifc and medical arguments against vivisection; only then will enough people realise just what is at stake and actually do something.

Until then, marches and demos on freezing cold days in the middle of no-where might well boost egos and a perceived sense of martyrdom, but it will not save the life of one single lab animal.


Chris (2)

That was just silly...you obviously are clueness to the depth of the issue!

Tell HLS, with their $100 million debt, no private bank or insurance that the campaigns don't work. Or perhaps the 39 breeders in the UK that have been closed due to the movement??

Better still, look at europe & the rest of the world and you will see that the campaigns against vivisection have only just got started!

Novartis and GSK have both said they won't build anymore sites in the UK because of the animal rights movement's pressure on their vivisection investments.

The Japanese Pharmaceutical industry witheld investing hundreds of thousands of pounds in the UK biotech industry because of fear of AR reprisals.

HLS are millions in debt, have few friends left and hundreds of suppliers and clients have left them.

Foreign vivisection firms will not even admit that they own animal labs in the UK because they don't want to get demo'd.

All the key UK universities (Oxford, Cambridge, Leeds, Bristol) have spent loads on security costs because of the AR protests over the past decade.

Boots Labs were closed down, as were a few others, following effective AR campaigns.

This proves that it's not just about ego's, but a movement that has and continues to achieve something. The list goes on, unlike these vivisection breeders that have been closed down by AR pressure:


* Abbot Brothers, Norwich. Breeders of pigeons
* Animal Supplies Ltd, Roebuck Farm, Herts. Traded monkeys which were bought from zoos
* A Tuck & Son Ltd., Battlesbridge, Southend-on-Sea, Essex. Breeders of rats and mice. Closed 2003. [3]
* Biological Supplier Services Ltd, Hull, East Yorkshire. Bred Cats and Farm Animals. Closed 2004.
* Club Row, Bethnal Green Road, London. Closed after campaign by the BUAV - 1983
* Coney Europa Ltd. Farm Animals - Closed 2000
* Consort Kennels, Herefordshire. Breeders of beagles and primate holding centre. Closed 1997.
* David Hall & Partners, Darley Oaks Farm, Newchurch, Staffordshire. Breeders of guineapigs. Closed Jan 2006.
* Froxfield Farms Ltd, Unit 3, King Lane, Froxfield, Hampshire, GU32 1DR Breeders of Rabbits
* Grayston Guinea-Pigs, Ringwood, Hants. Breeders of guinea-pigs
* Griffin & Co, Essex Closed: Apx 2000 Supplied Frogs and Amphibians
* Hacking & Churchill, Huntingdon, Cambs. Breeders of dogs and rabbits. Site bought by Harlan Interfauna Ltd when H&C closed
* Harlan Rosehill Farm, East Sussex. Breeders of guineapig and rabbits. Closed 2000.
* Harlan Firgrove Farm, Heathfield, East Sussex. Closed 2004.
* Harlan Cambridge Farm, Sussex. Bred rodents
* HG Rabbitry, Healds Green, Chadderton, Oldham, OL11 2SP
* Hillgrove Farm, Witney, Oxfordshire. Breeders of cats. Closed in 1998.
* Hylyne Rabbits, Lymm, Cheshire. Closed 1994.
* Lesley Moore, Bradford, West Yorkshire. Breeders of rabbits and pigeons. Closed apx. 2004.
* Morton Commercial Rabbits, Parsonage Farm, Stansted, Essex
* Nuneham Farm, Nuneham Courtenay, Oxford. Bred Cats - was owned by the University of Oxford
* OLAC (Northern) Ltd - Closed 1987
* OLAC (Southern) Ltd - Closed 1989
* Oxford University Park Farm, Northmoor, Oxford. Closed in 1999.
* Pemberley Rabbits, Cottenham, Cambridge
* Perrycroft Lodge, Jubilee Drive, Malvern, Worcestershire, WR13 6DN Bred beagles. Closed in 1990.
* Porcellus Animal Breeding Ltd, Sussex. Bred guinea-pigs. Closed in 2004.
* Ranch Rabbits, Parkfield Farm, Crawley Down, Copthorne, Sussex Closed 1994
* Redfern Animal Breeders, Ely Grange, Frant, Tunbridge Wells, TN3 9DZ Bred Guinea-Pigs
* Regal Group UK t/a Regal Rabbits, Great Bookham, Surrey. Breeders of rabbits. Closed in 2000.
* Rosemead Rabbits, Waltham Abbey, Essex. Bred Rabbits
* Rowlands Cattle Farm, Hampshire - Cows for use at GlaxoSmithKline
* Roy Robinson, St. Stephens Road Nursery, Ealing, London, W13 8HB Bred cats
* Shamrock Farm, Small Dole, West Sussex. Importers of primates. Closed in 2000.
* Sky Commercial Rabbit Farm, Meltham, Nr Huddersfield, West Yorkshire
* Stukeley Meadows, Stukeley Meadows Industrial Estate, Huntingdon. Breeders of rodents for Huntingdon Life Sciences. Closed c.2000.
* The Frog Farm, County Meath, Ireland. Breeders of Frogs and Reptiles. Closed in 2005.
* Water Farm Goat Centre, Stogursey, Bridgwater, Somerset. Breeders of goats. c.2004
* Wrights of Essex, Latchingdon, Chelmsford. Bred Syrian Hamsters

"...you obviously are clueness to the depth of the issue! "

You are entitled to your views, but having been involved in the vivisection struggle for many years, and having seen many, many 'know-it-all' animal rights people - indeed many ordinary people - come into the movement and then leave when they realise the futility of the ethical arguments summed up in the idea of 'animal rights', I do feel a little qualified to say what I say.

The Oxford lab is as good as built. The campaign to stop this from happening has been a failure, and a failure because of the purile arguments used by the AR movement who put personal egos before what has to be done. There are I understand plans for a massive MRC research lab in Camden; the only arguments that stand a chance of stopping it are the arguments that it poses very real threats to health; the vast majority of local people would, I suggest, not give a toss if it were only an animal rights issue.

As to that list of supposed 'successes' - big deal. Does vivisection or does it not still continue to torture and maim millions of animals each year? Ie these tactics have been a failure at stopping vivisectuion. I sometimes think that deep down some AR people have a sneaking suspicion that vivisection can never be stopped, and therefore kid themselves into believing that in some strange way failures are successes!

In 10 years time I will still be at it, no doubt saying the same things to the same crowd of well-meaning people using the same no-hoper arguments. I predict that in that time not only will vivisection NOT have been abolished, but it will probably have intensified along with the state's tactics of silencing all dissenting voices.

Had the scientific and medical arguments been widely disseminated as they should have been, it is likely that vivisection would have been consigned to the history books years ago; the very reason the petrochemical industry-controlled national 'anti-vivisection' societies kept such material away from their members and public alike.

I can only suggest that you read through the CIVIS Bulletins and reports here to gain a better understanding of the present through what has gone before.


Regards Chris (2)

 http://www.vivisectionfraud.com/civisreports.html

I think you need to look at the reality, Chris, instead of some diluded ideas. it doesn't matter what arguements you base campaigns on; if you effect corporations then the state will fight you.

Outside the vivisection arguements, lets look at a different movement - the environmentalists. Heathrow got an injunction, as did Drax, Radley Lakes (NPower) and a few others. More people are against global warming than are animal research, yet the same tactics are being used by the state to stop environmental campaigns that have been used against the animal rights movement for years.

If you've been on many marches you might have heard the chant; One Struggle, One Fight - it's more than just words, its reality.


You have also mentioned the Camden MRC lab - if you truely know what you're on about and have the amount of knowledge you suggest then you would know that if the lab at Camden is built it will not change the number of animals used in testing as it is a relocation project. I.E moving th MRC labs from Mill Hill to Camden with renovated facilities and buildings etc. The MRC are not heavily campaigned against by the AR movement because they are a partially government-funded body and have umlimited backing, where as somewhere like the Huntingdon Life Sciences Group do not and are a commercial business and easier to close down.

Firstly I do not pretend to have all the answers, and nor do I have access to some divine wisdom out of reach of common mortals; merely that I am blessed in the first instance with quite a few years experience in the AV struggle, and secondly with a generous helping of common sense.

It matters not whether the proposed new MRC lab uses more, less, or the same numers of animals; the whole point I was trying to make is that, rightly or wrongly, most people will accept vivisection because they put self-interests first, and that there is no chance of stopping it unless the medical, scientific, environmental and economic arguments are used. The very reason why the Oxford lab is now built: incompetence on the part of the animal rights/anti-vivisection movement.

As most people have been brain-washed with the mantra "its the life of your baby or a few dirty lab rats", anyone opposing vivisection has no choice other than to undo this systematic brainwashing; cries of 'animal rights' and 'cruelty to animals' will continue to fall on deaf ears and animals will die in labs until the end of time unless we change tact.

Incidentally, just what are the arguments usually put forward to oppose airport expansions, nuclear power stations, etc? That they pose a threat to human health! Exactly the same arguments that need to be used in the fight to end vivisection.

And so what if HLS does close - the resaech will just go elsewhere and vivisection will continue to exist simply bacause the fundamental premise upon which it is allowed to continue has not been challenged.

And you say it is me that needs to look at reality!

Chris

Reading through your post again I noticed a glaring and very telling line that seems to sum up the attitude of todays anti-vivisection movement, so at the expense of wasting more time and energy on people whp probably won't comprehend what I am saying:

"The MRC are not heavily campaigned against by the AR movement because they are a partially government-funded body and have umlimited backing, where as somewhere like the Huntingdon Life Sciences Group do not and are a commercial business and easier to close down. "

In other words you (the animal rights movement) has this perception that vivisection as a whole can never be stopped, and that the only success we can expect is a reduction in vivisection through the intimidation of individual companies, which simply drives the problem elsewhere (abroad): vivisection, meanwhile, continuing undisturbed.

This realisation answers questions I have had for so long:

* why do most AV put their faith in the big national societies despite their proven worthlessness and continuous endorsements of vivisection.

* why does the AV 'movement' continues to hold protests outside deserted labs on winter days - even Xmas day - despite them being largely ignored, and the message portrayed as being one of against perceived 'vital medical research' .

* why does the AR movement continues to alienate 'ordinary' people - even relishing in this alienation - through their ludicrous antics.

* why does the entire 'movement seems to be about making oneself feel good, getting the adrenalin pumping, boosting egos, creating martyrs. Perhaps in their deepest subconscious some even dislike the possibility of vivisection ever being abolished; their supposed 'opposition' to it giving them a purpose to an otherwise mundane life.

* why is there such a reluctance on the part of most AR people to educate themselves to even the most basic scientific arguments against vivisection: none of that matters - it is all about feeling good!

*why through their actions and words does the AR movement seems to revel in one failure after another, even to the extent of being soundly humiliated in debate after debate with the vivisectors who soothingly reassure the viewers that 'whilst they regret having to do animal experiments, it is the only way that little Johnny will have a cure for his leukemia'...and no-one dares/is able to refute this crap.

Vivisection, as a methodology, must be attacked on every level. Only by an act of parliament will it ever be abolished, which needs the mobilisation of many thousands of people; something that will only happen when ordinary joe public are awoken as to the uselessness and counterproductiveness of vivisection and its threat to human and planetary health and the waste of enormous amounts of money that should be used to finance genuine health care measures: improved diet, health education, non toxic therapies, better housing, cleaner food and water, etc.

Read: Slaughter of the Innocent; Naked Empress, and 1000 Doctors Against Vivisection, all by Hans Ruesch.

Regards, Chris (2)

Firstly I must add that on the vast majority of anti-vivisection demos that I've been present at many hundreds of leaflets offering information on the sheer scientific invalidity of animal testing have been handed out to the public raising the human health issue out on the streets.

I do think protests and marches are still a good way of getting a mass leafletting session together!

The point Chris makes does seem to be true that most people don't actually seem to give a shit about animals being poisoned to death inside the labs because they've been told "it's for the public good"(!!!)

Maybe the 'street movement' would be best off solely concentrating on the human health issue, outside the labs, on the streets and anywhere else we can get the message across effectively.

* why do most AV put their faith in the big national societies despite their proven worthlessness and continuous endorsements of vivisection.

Laziness and /or gullibility, just as the general public give huge amounts to cancer charities on the never never for a ‘cure’ for cancer sometime in the future without seeing any evidence of a result in the constant present. In the case of both AVs and the public it is a desire to want to believe something rather than face reality. The future is indefinitely postponed, the proclaimed desired result never materialises but that doesn’t stop people having faith in those organisations who are ‘working hard’ and ‘trying their best’ till whenever!

* why does the AV 'movement' continues to hold protests outside deserted labs on winter days - even Xmas day - despite them being largely ignored, and the message portrayed as being one of against perceived 'vital medical research' .

A gathering of inward looking people who come together to feel collectively strong and are perhaps so into their own outlook that they are incapable of seeing how they appear to the public. Some even believe that if the public knew the horrors they would react the exact same way as AR people when the evidence shows otherwise. The public don’t care about the concept of Animal Rights.

* why does the AR movement continues to alienate 'ordinary' people - even relishing in this alienation - through their ludicrous antics.

Elitism maybe. A feeling on the part of certain people who want to own the issue of AR and direct it on their terms through their own narrow vision. Not unlike small irrelevant political parties who are more like cults. The possible relishing of the alienation you refer to is the most childish aspect of certain AR people. Not unlike some teenagers pissing off their parents for the feeling they get from doing it.

* why does the entire 'movement seems to be about making oneself feel good, getting the adrenalin pumping, boosting egos, creating martyrs. Perhaps in their deepest subconscious some even dislike the possibility of vivisection ever being abolished; their supposed 'opposition' to it giving them a purpose to an otherwise mundane life.

Some people get a whole identity out of certain activities and loudly proclaimed beliefs. Certainly they are against vivisection to an extant but they might also be lost without it. Some may think of themselves as freedom fighters/urban guerillas - combat trousers, veggie boots etc. Wolfie Smith where are you!

* why is there such a reluctance on the part of most AR people to educate themselves to even the most basic scientific arguments against vivisection: none of that matters - it is all about feeling good!

More and more AR people are aware of the scientific arguments thankfully but some completely ignore it or seriously believe vivisection does work but is immoral and must be stopped. Their view of themselves as compassionate is more important to those people than gaining insight or knowledge.

*why through their actions and words does the AR movement seems to revel in one failure after another, even to the extent of being soundly humiliated in debate after debate with the vivisectors who soothingly reassure the viewers that 'whilst they regret having to do animal experiments, it is the only way that little Johnny will have a cure for his leukemia'...and no-one dares/is able to refute this crap.

Possibly many people love a good noble cause to espouse and to be seen and heard to espouse it loudly. Bizarrely, losing might make them feel even more right and good and on a higher level to a cruel and heartless world which won’t listen.

This is not a criticism of the many good decent people who I have met on the SHAC campaign for instance and who have no interest in getting a whole lifestyle/identity out of the issue. They oppose vivisection for moral and scientific reasons but have no interest in being part of any inward looking AR clique.

Ok so the Ego factor within the AV movement has (hopefully) effectively been broken down here on this thread somewhat.

Ego should always be dissected, destroyed and done away with. Infact don't leave your home until you've smashed it ... or face getting fucked up because of it.

That isn't an order, it's a suggestion.

The question is what is being offered by "Chris", "Me" (and others) on the best possible way forward for the movement?


Some more worthy reading along the same lines from Arkangel  http://www.arkangelweb.org


When can we reasonably expect abolition? Months not decades

How many times have you heard the line of compromise: “we look forward to a time when we have better methods, and animal tests can be abandoned”? It’s a line they’ve been using to justify vivisection for decades. But this line isn’t going to work anymore. The thinking behind it has the potential to start dismantling up the industry right now. Interested in making this happen? Read on.

There’s a big gap between what can be proved, and what is generally known. Decades ago it was understood that animal tests were not the reliable pre-clinical test they were claimed to be. For most of the last century good non animal methods existed. But the real change has been the last decade, when the use of technology has meant that the ‘alternative’ non-animal methods are so incisive and accurate that they are preferable to animal tests. That time - at which animal tests can be abandoned with no concern for the impact on science - is now.

Cell culture technology

In the year 2000 toxicology experts compared cell culture and animal data against human data in an international study. It was discovered that cell culture was much more predictive of human data than animal tests were. Since then, cell cultures have improved in accuracy. Several skin and eye models have evolved, which means product safety is more accurately assessed.

Finding useful drugs

Previous efforts to test cancer drugs for effectiveness used animals, which was admitted by all involved to be a disaster. It was believed to have missed useful drugs, and all drugs it did identify were useless or toxic. Now, the American National Cancer Institute maintains cultures of 60 different human cancers, and can screen thousands of drugs and plants a year against them. It’s cheaper, quicker, and much more accurate.

Healthy Babies

While birth defect rates are rocketing, a review of animal tests for teratogenicity (the ability to cause birth defects) showed that they had been terrible: slightly more effective than pure guesswork. There’s even a theory than any substance can be shown to a teratogen by animal tests, and there’s no substance discovered which proves this wrong. Oxygen, essential vitamins, fruit juices and water have been ‘proven’ dangerous in animals, although safe in humans. Over 97% of substances identified as dangerous by animal tests are safe.

The alternative? The Embryonic Stem Test (EST). In cell culture, it’s more accurate than a range of animal tests. The Micromas (MM) is similar and 100% effective in identifying strong teratogens. This whole area of vivisection could and should be abandoned now.

Computers

Given the rate at which computer technology is advancing, it’s not surprising that amazing things can be done. Virtual hearts can be given virtual drugs and the effect on their rhythm and activity simulated accurately. Drug companies are taking this technology on readily. An entire virtual human has been in development recently, and versions are already available. Drugs can be tried on these flexible models, which give accurate results.

Microdose

Imaging technology was developed by brain researchers and enables great insight into what’s going on in the body. It can even trace the effect and pathway of tiny doses of test drugs when they're given to a human. To evaluate the technique (known as ‘microdose’), one millionth (0.0001%) of HIV drug AZT was given to patients. Conclusions were in detail, for example “between 30 and 45 minutes 0.09% of the oral dose resided in the white blood cells of the blood”. They were also able to see how it entered the genetic material.

By comparison, animals metabolise drugs along different pathways, at different rates, and because their organs are different, the reactions are usually different. Through using computers, cell culture and microdosing, we can easily gain a better picture of a drug’s safety, and can therefore abandon animal tests in this area too.

Protein analysis

Now it's understood that disease starts in the individual cells, which are different in all animals. It’s increasingly clear that the individual proteins in the cell determine how illnesses develop. Proteomics analyses proteins and is cataloguing them. This area is already giving masses of information about individual illnesses.

The above techniques are only scratching the surface of the masses of technology which wasn’t available before, but is now.

The point is that if we could only stop animal experiments when suitable replacement methods are available, that time is very clearly here.

But this comes at a time when animal tests are increasing. The UK Home Office has just lost a court case over its failure to regulate animal tests. Drug companies are still getting licences to use animal tests when alternative methods are not only available, but they are superior.

What are we going to do with this?

The gap between the general knowledge of this situation and the reality is massive. We need to bridge the gap. There’s no easy answer, and new suggestions and methods are welcome. VIN has recently started a Newspaper Group to target national and regional press to help spread the truth. If you have ideas, please get in touch. If you’d like to help but are unsure about your own writing skills etc., you’ll get help so get in touch.

VIN (Vivisection Information Network) exists to get the medical information better known, knowing that this evidence has the potential to bring vivisection to a stop - literally. If we’re going to make this happen, the first question we need to ask is what each of us can individually do to spread this knowledge.

Vivisection Information Network. P O Box 223, Camberley, GU16 5ZU  vivisectionkills@hotmail.com

I've looked at the website suggested  http://www.vivisectionfraud.com and a very good read it is too.

I'm unemployed and am willing to leaflet all day to get this info out there but there's no way I can afford £4 per hundred leaflets to distribute on offer on this website.

Seems a bit expensive?

Any discounts?

Why not used recycled paper?

Cheers.

Well it has been encouraging to see a few intelligent replies here, so thanks for restoring my faith a little!

my 2pence worth:

"The point Chris makes does seem to be true that most people don't actually seem to give a shit about animals being poisoned to death inside the labs because they've been told "it's for the public good"(!!!) "

I wouldn't say people don't give a shit about animals, but they care more for the health of themselves and their loved ones - you have to remember most people truly believe that animal research is vital to human health, and to end it would end the hope of the cures for all the diseases which, conveniently, remain uncured.

"Maybe the 'street movement' would be best off solely concentrating on the human health issue, outside the labs, on the streets and anywhere else we can get the message across effectively. "

We do not need to forget the ethical arguments - they are the reason most people get involved - but to ignore the huge arsenal of scientific/medical/environmental/economic arguments is collective suicide.

me:

Your comments need no adding to; merely the fact that if we truly want to end vivisection we must stop doing what makes us feel good, and doing what will end it. We need an act of parliament, and this will only happen when enough people demand vivisection's end and the huge amount of money currently wasted is diverted into proper health care and valid research. And people in their tens of thousands will only do this when they realise the gigantic hoax they have been subjected to.

sleepy:

"When can we reasonably expect abolition? Months not decades"

Regretably I would suggest that this is hopeless naive. Vivisection continues in order to justify the out of control medical establishment and in particular the almighty pharmaceutical industry. Remember that over 1 billion UK prescriptions are written each year; 22 million people are on repeat prescriptions: the drugs industry is very very powerful, requiring animals as 'scapegoats' when their products kill and maim humans (some 30,000 UK citizens killed each year due to animal 'safety-tested' drugs - without the alibi of animal tests they would be unable to market their products in such vast quantities. Currently there is simply too little incentive (too few informed people) to demand change.

Your list of scientiifc testing methods is all well and good, but this smacks of 'alternatives'; remember that vivisection is not science and there is no need to find any 'alternative' to it. Even the vivisectors love alternatives - it gives their phoney research a validity that in reality it does not possess. In fact, those who profess the need to find 'alternatives' are either ignorant of the subject, or are keen to ensure vivisection continues. Those who can read between the lines will at once realise the true meaning of those organisations soliciting funds to find 'alternatives'.!! Hint: read the 2 civis Bulletins and the Foundation Reports on the website:

 http://www.vivisectionfraud.com/civisreports.html

Also regarding alternatives:

 http://www.vivisectionfraud.com/alternativestowhat.html

 http://www.vivisectionfraud.com/deception.html

In short, promoting the supposed need to find alternatives help keeps vivisection going.

woken up:

I have always tried to sell eveything at cost price, and at £4 per 100 of A4 colour folded leaflets, with postage, there is no profit being made. The Hans Rueasch Foundation is a new venture, it seeks the active support of those who realise just what has to be done to see the end of vivisection, and who agree with our stated purpose.

 http://www.vivisectionfraud.com/purpose.html

Anyone interested feel free to request being added to our mailing list.

Best wishes, Chris (2)

I came across this site while researching some references. Under this particular article I was surprised to see that most of the comments were submitted using nom de plumes!

But, more importantly, I was horrified to see Roy Robinson listed by "Novartis" as having been 'closed down' as a vivisectionist, and, because he 'bred cats'!

Roy Robinson ( who died many years ago) was a well known geneticist who contributed greatly to the pool of knowledge. He collaborated with veterinarians and cat lovers the world over to understand cats and improve their health, and it is hard to see how some anonymous person can feel free to criticise such a man.